1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A Pottering Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into the automobile insurance contract with respect to B/Ling Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 12:45 on July 8, 2013, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle and driving the Paris Seab in the Paris Seabane located in Daegu, Daegu, with a flow-distance distance from the front side of the five-lane distance to the front side of the Defendant vehicle, while driving the front side of the Defendant vehicle driving along the five-lane from the front side of the five-lane, the part behind the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle driving the three-lane in the same direction is shocked by the front side of the Defendant vehicle, and the Plaintiff vehicle driving the three-lane left side of the same direction while driving the three-lane left side of the said vehicle, and changing the two-lane course to the rear side of the Plaintiff vehicle to avoid the said accident, and the said driver suffered the injury of the Defendant Obane.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 105,877,820 to C under the pretext of the medical expenses, etc. incurred by the instant accident.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant subscribed to the “Mutual Agreement on the Deliberation on the Compensation for Automobile Insurance Claim”, and thus, the Defendant filed a request for deliberation with the Deliberation Committee on the Compensation for Damages (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”). On August 10, 2015, the Deliberation Committee set the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s liability to KRW 15% and the ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle’s liability to KRW 85%, and decided that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 15,881,673 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant deliberation and resolution”).

E. Accordingly, on December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,881,670 to the Defendant for deliberation and determination.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Gap evidence 7-1 to 3, Gap evidence 8-1 to 16, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and Eul.